Search

Purpose To define the role of focal laser ablation (FLA) as clinical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) using the Delphi consensus method. Methods A panel of international experts in the field of focal therapy (FT) in PCa conducted a collaborative consensus project using the Delphi method. Experts were invited to online questionnaires focusing on patient selection and treatment of PCa with FLA during four subsequent rounds. After each round, outcomes were displayed, and questionnaires were modified based on the comments provided by panelists. Results were finalized and discussed during face-to-face meetings. Results Thirty-seven experts agreed to participate, and consensus was achieved on 39/43 topics. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as any volume Grade Group 2 [Gleason score (GS) 3+4]. Focal therapy was specified as treatment of all csPCa and can be considered primary treatment as an alternative to radical treatment in carefully selected patients. In patients with intermediate-risk PCa (GS 3+4) as well as patients with MRI-visible and biopsy-confirmed local recurrence, FLA is optimal for targeted ablation of a specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible focus. However, FLA should not be applied to candidates for active surveillance and close follow-up is required. Suitability for FLA is based on tumor volume, location to vital structures, GS, MRI-visibility, and biopsy confirmation. Conclusion Focal laser ablation is a promising technique for treatment of clinically localized PCa and should ideally be performed within approved clinical trials. So far, only few studies have reported on FLA and further validation with longer follow-up is mandatory before widespread clinical implementation is justified. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00345-019-02636-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Post-operative infections are frequent after radical cystectomy with urinary diversion surgery (UDS). Reduction of post-operative infections necessitates appropriate peri-operative antimicrobial prophylaxis targeting causative bacteria. We assessed the incidence and microbiology of infections in the 30-day post-operative period after UDS and investigated effectiveness of the currently used peri-operative antibacterial prophylaxis. Methods Retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing UDS in a tertiary university medical center from January 2014 until September 2016. Antibiotic prophylaxis consisted of cefazolin plus metronidazol according to the Dutch national guideline. Primary outcome was the incidence of post-operative infections within 30 days. Risk factors for post-operative infections and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of cultured bacteria were also assessed. Results 147 patients were included. 69 patients (46.9%) had 82 post-operative infections, 27 of which were patients with bacteremia (18.4%). Highest incidence of infections was on day 4–5 and on day 8–10 postoperatively. The second peak was associated with ureteral stent removal. 4.8% of 147 study patients developed bacteremia 24 h after stent removal, which counted for 25.9% of all bacteremia episodes found in this study. Enterobacteriaceae were cultured in 67.9% of blood cultures and were only highly susceptible to ciprofloxacine, piperacillin-tazobactam (90%), meropenem and gentamicin (100%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed orthotopic Hautmann neobladder to be associated with increased infections complications: odds ratio 4.1 (95% confidence interval 1.6–10.5), p = 0.03. Conclusions The incidence of infections after radical cystectomy is high and particularly ureteral stent removal was associated with both bacteremia and complicated urinary tract infections. Based on the results of this study, antibiotic prophylaxis might need to be broadened for patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Further research is required to investigate whether current guidelines need to be altered concerning administration of antibiotic prophylaxis just before stent removal. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-019-3932-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.